Internet Access No Luxury

Few technological advancements have been adopted faster and with more societal impact as the internet and the plethora of related applications made possible by the internet.  The worldwide web, social media like Facebook and Twitter, and countless other services have reshaped commerce, social interaction, the media, education and most every other aspect of our daily lives. It should come as no surprise that last week Federal regulators voted to expand a $1.5 billion telephone subsidy program to bring broadband to many disadvantaged in our society.

The Federal Communications Commission approved expanding the Lifeline program to include discounts for broadband Internet service. This decision expands these services to the Reagan Era program, which was originally designed to provide subsidized land-line telephone service to low-income households. Starting in December 2016, commercial broadband providers offering discounted internet service to eligible Lifeline customers will receive a $9.25 subsidy per Lifeline subscriber.

Few would argue today that having access to the internet is a luxury.  Applying for a job, interacting with government agencies, and accessing expanded educational opportunities all rely on being able to go online.  In many ways internet access has become a basic utility like water, sewer and electric power.

The US has a long history of assisting those of less means to reap benefits of new technologies.  For example, the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, provided low cost federal loans for the installation of electrical distribution systems to serve isolated rural areas of the United States. The funding was channeled through cooperative electric power companies, many of which still exist today.  That Act helped to improve the living standards of the people not only by giving them electricity in their homes but also by making it possible for industry to locate in these rural areas bringing jobs and economic growth.

It took about 60 years for home electrification to be seen as a non-luxury item and spark the beginning of a government subsidy program for the disadvantaged.  It took almost 100 years for telephone service to be recognized as a necessity.  The first internet provider began commercial service in the US and Australia about 1990.  So the path of internet access from being considered a luxury to a necessity has been much quicker.

FCC To Propose New Privacy Rules for Internet Service Providers

Personal privacy continues to be a hot button item for many of us as we embrace new digital communication technologies.  Most recently, the Chair of the Federal Communications Commission, Thomas Wheeler, announced plans to propose new rules limiting what personal information can be sold by Internet Service Providers. (ISPs)   An ISP is your connection to the Internet.  These companies provide the wire or fiber coming into you house or business. In our area the leading ISPs are Cincinnati Bell, Comcast and Time Warner Cable.  In most cases, other than supplying email accounts, ISPs serve only as the intermediary between you and the plethora of online services like Facebook, Netflix, Skype, Pandora and thousands of thousands of other apps.

Currently most all of these ISPs capture copious information about which sites you visit and even what information or product you are searching for.  This information is extremely valuable to companies who want to sell you something and, as such, a source of significant revenue to the ISPs when they sell this information to those companies.  It is no coincidence that an hour after you search for some item or service on line that often you will see a slick advertisement on your Facebook page for that very item.

Chairman Wheeler is proposing that this practice of selling usage information should be better communicated by the ISPs to the consumer and that the consumer must “opt in” to allow their information to be shared.

When signing up for most any service or app, before downloading or using it we are faced with “accepting” the terms of an agreement written in legal and technical terms which would befuddle even the most educated among us.  Since they are almost biblical in length, most of us just click the box and go on our merry digital way.  Buried deep in your ISP agreement is your permission to allow the sale of your information to third parties.

The proposed rules would change this permission process requiring you to click a specific box allowing the sale of your usage information rather than having this permission buried in the agreement text. 

ISP’s contend that the revenue from the sale of this information helps keep their monthly fees low.  This may be the case and the rules would allow for some flexibility in pricing if you allow your information to be sold.

These new rules are still in the development phase and would need to go through the process of public comment before being considered by the entire commission.  This normally takes several months.  I will stay on top of it.

Get Ready To Change the Channel

The FCC is in the process of realigning the TV broadcast channels again.  Not too long ago you might remember we were all required to get new TV sets in order to enjoy the new digital HD TV channels.  At that time most TV stations, both commercial and public were required to use new channels on which to broadcast.  So locally Channels 5, 9, 12, 48 and 64 built new digital transmitters and for the most part began broadcasting on new channels.  Because the new sets were able to display the old channel numbers even though the actual channels had changed, few of us even cared that Channel 5 was actually broadcasting on channel 35 or that 48 was really channel 34.

There is a good reason for these changes.  The FCC is trying to develop a plan to use all the broadcast channels in the most efficient way so additional bandwidth can be opened up for the exploding wireless market.  Today in this country there are many more wireless devices than there are people.  Take an inventory of your house.  The smartphone, tablet, gaming device, hands free telephone, blue tooth speakers and headphones, wireless doorbell, baby monitor and your garage opener all compete for bandwidth space which is a finite resource.  By moving TV broadcasters to lower frequencies, most in the VHF Band (Channels 2-13), large portions of bandwidth will be available to auction to the Verizons and AT&Ts of the world for wireless devices.

Most likely this first phase of the transition will not require the purchase of new TV sets.  However, at the same time this reorganization of channels is going on, the industry is developing new technology to replace the Digital Broadcasting technology adopted just about 15 years ago. You will remember needing to buy a new Digital TV or connect one of those DTV convertors to your existing set.  You may need to do it again.

This new TV technology will provide higher resolution, more robust over-the-air reception and many features similar to those now found only on internet- connected smart TVs.  How quickly this will happen is anyone’s guess but for sure it will roll out much faster than the roll out of DTV at the beginning of this century.  Whether it will be a shot in the arm for local broadcasters is still unknown.  Many local TV stations are finding it harder and harder to compete with the plethora of non-broadcast options.  We will have to just stay tuned.

The Sky Didn’t Fall

The internet is back in the news with last week’s Federal Court’s decision not to delay the implementation of the FCC's Net Neutrality rules, which became effective last Friday.  The court was considering the effects of the rule, predicted to be dire by the big cable and telephone companies. Those companies were bridling at the FCC’s decision to regulate internet providers under some of the same regulations currently imposed on telephone companies.

Simply put, Net Neutrality means that internet service providers, or I.S.P.s, can’t give one website an advantage over another, or allow companies to pay extra to have their data placed on a “faster lane” ahead of competitors.

For many internet providers the imposition of regulation on their business is portrayed as nothing short of a disaster.  They maintain that any regulation will stifle competition and innovation.  The proverbial “Digital Clouds” will come crashing to earth.

The arguments seem to dismiss the fact that regulation and innovation seem to coexist in the mobile phone business.  The cell services, options and prices have not been hampered by regulation.  Competition continues among several companies offering different plans, subscription fees and options vying for your business.  Few would contend that the services offered are not getting better all the time.  “Can you hear me now?” is becoming an anachronism.

ISPs may not want you to know that during the previous non-regulated period, the internet speeds that most of us have available at home or at the office are laughable compared to those available in other parts of the world.  Apart from some U.S. communities like Chattanooga, Tennessee; Kansas City; and Ephrata, a tiny burg in Washington State; our internet speeds lag way behind the rest of the world. 

Access to the internet is no longer a luxury.  In many cases open access is more important than having a land line telephone.  Shopping, banking, communicating or just making a living would not be possible in today’s world without the internet.  Because it is so important, it seems to me that some regulation and oversight is a good idea.  Such regulation exists for companies providing electricity and water.  Imagine our interstate highway system without free and open access for all.

The internet service providers are mostly for-profit businesses and I don’t worry that they will cease all innovation and stop improving their networks because of the Net Neutrality rules.  They want to keep us as paying customers and will find ways do so.

Internet Regulation Takes Center Stage, Again

The internet is back in the news with last week’s “Net Neutrality” remarks by Thomas Wheeler, FCC Chairman.  Seems like every two or three months some government or industry leader makes some pronouncement about rules and regulations for the internet, and how, if enacted, they will either be the death knell for the internet in the USA or enable the internet to expand in unprecedented speed and availability for all.

The current discussions and arguments deal with the FCC’s desire to regulate internet providers under some of the same regulations imposed on telephone companies.  Currently there are certain “common carrier” restrictions on telephone companies that, if placed on internet providers, would make “net neutrality” the law of the land.  Simply put, net neutrality means that internet service providers, or I.S.P.s, can’t give one website an advantage over another, or allow companies to pay extra to have their data placed on a “faster lane” ahead of competitors. 

For many internet providers the imposition of regulation on their business is portrayed as nothing short of a disaster.  They maintain that any regulation will stifle competition and innovation.   Such protestations deserve some investigation.

Regulation and innovation seem to coexist in the mobile phone business.  The services, options and costs have not been hampered by regulation.   For sure, competition continues among several companies with different plans, subscription fees and options vying for your business.

The argument that somehow these regulations will keep the companies from providing better service also seems to ring hollow.  I have written about this often.  The internet speeds that most of us have available at home or at the office are laughable compared to those available in other parts of the world.  Apart from some US communities like Chattanooga, Tennessee, Kansas City and Ephrata, a tiny burg in Washington State, our internet speeds lag way behind the rest of the world.   This is not because of regulation.

Access to the internet is no longer a luxury.  In many cases good access is more important than access to the telephone.  Shopping, banking, communicating or just making a living would not be possible in today’s world without the internet.  Because it is so important, it seems to me that some regulation and oversight is a good idea.

I do worry that the businesses providing internet in the USA, as slow as they are, will find it difficult to deal with the FCC bureaucracy which often moves at a glacial pace.  We could hope that the FCC will be forced to move quicker and the internet providers will see that a faster internet is both a good business strategy and good for the American economy.   

US Broadband Plan Overdue

Recently the FCC released its much anticipated strategy for addressing the United State’s failure to provide universally available and affordable high speed broadband services. It may come as a surprise to many that US citizens have much slower access to the Internet than many much smaller and less affluent nations. The RoadRunner or Zoomtown offerings that we have available from Time Warner or Cincinnati Bell would seem like “dial up” to someone in South Korea, France or even Portugal.

There are many reasons why many of these countries are ahead of us. Some governments have been quicker than others to see the importance of universally available high speed access to the Internet for their economies to prosper. Other countries are ahead of us since they do not have in place an extensive legacy infrastructure which must be integrated into any new one. This is certainly a big issue in our country. In fact many developing counties will never have a hard wired telephone system since the installation of a cellular system is more economical and quicker to deploy.

No matter the reasons for our current less-than-adequate system, the new FCC Broadband initiative does a good job of identifying the problems and suggesting steps that need to be taken to address them. It also articulates the tremendous importance to our economy to be leaders in the digital era. While the FCC can make recommendations, it will be up to the Congress to find the funds to actually make the changes.

There are four major areas of concentration in the FCC’s Broadband plan. The first calls for policies to ensure robust competition and investment in the private sector.

The second calls for the efficient allocation and management of government controlled assets, such as spectrum, poles, and rights-of-way, to encourage network upgrades to these assets. This includes examining the wireless bandwidth now allocated to broadcasters to see if some of those channels would be better used for wireless broadband instead of radio and TV transmissions.

The third recommendation calls for reform of current Universal Service policies so that broadband services will be made available in high cost areas; and ensure that low-income Americans can afford broadband. It also supports efforts to boost adoption and utilization. The Universal Service concept began some 60 years ago to make sure telephone service was available in rural parts of the country. Expanding it to broadband seems only logical.

Finally, the FCC plan calls for the reform of laws, policies, standards and incentives to maximize the benefits of broadband in sectors that the government influences significantly, such as public education, health care and government operations.

The release of this plan is only the beginning. Over the next few years much discussion and debate will center on improving the availability and speed of our Broadband networks. I’ll try to give you updates on this critical issue.

Still Confusion About DTV Conversion

Well it looks like February analog shutdown will not take place. Nevertheless, the local stations have been doing everything possible to try to assist those who may not be ready for change in over-the-air delivery of TV if it happens next month or this summer. A few days ago I participated with representatives from all the local stations in a test. As part of that test, individuals with questions could call into a phone bank that we were hosting at the CET studios. While there were many different questions, several seemed to be more prevalent than others.

Many people are still confused about waiting until February 18th to turn on their converters. THERE IS NO REASON TO WAIT. Not only can you get all your favorite programming that is available on the local stations’ analog channels, there are several digital–only channels now available. You will find 24 hour weather information on some commercial stations, a how-to channel from CET and even a special channel featuring coverage of the Ohio legislature. They are all available now free. All you need is a digital TV or a DTV set top converter for your old TV set.

Many people with new digital high definition (HD) sets have not set them up properly to actually get HD. These new sets, just like DTV converters, need to be set up when you first turn them on. Read the instructions. The local DTV channels must be scanned in. If you just plug in the set and don’t set it up properly, you may only get the analog channels even though you have a new digital set. Since in most cases on a new digital set the analog picture looks so much better than was possible on the old analog-only set, people are so delighted that that don’t realize that they are not seeing and enjoying real digital HD and don’t bother to really learn about controlling the new set. A good hint…if you have a new DTV set and you see any snow, shadows or ghosts on the screen, you are NOT watching a digital channel. You need an antenna (indoor or outdoor) that can receive both UHF and VHF channels. This does not need to be an expensive one. My tests show that a $15 set top “rabbit ears” model is fine for the majority of viewers in our area. Also don’t immediately go for an “amplified” or “powered” antenna. With digital technology sometimes too much signal is as bad as not enough.

If you have questions about DTV or any other consumer electronics technology, just send me an email.

Why are we changing a perfectly good TV system?

Much has been written and reported about the transition from an analog to a digital TV system in the United States and in other countries around the word. This column has discussed the features of new TV sets and the various “flavors” of technologies and services that you can use to receive these new digital signals. The other day I was asked some very simple questions which have not received much attention in any of these reports, including mine. Why are we doing this? Why are we spending billions of dollars to rebuild, from the ground up, a national TV system that seems to work perfectly well?

Well, there is not one answer but several. Basically it comes down to money, available resources, and the quality of the TV product. I’ll take them one by one.

In the mid to late 1990s Congress was looking for every way possible to increase federal revenues in order to wipe out, or at least reduce, the national deficit. This came at the same time more and more wireless technology companies were exhausting their allocated radio frequencies. A quick calculation showed that current analog TV was using a disproportionate amount of the radio spectrum and that a conversion to digital would free up some of this very valuable space. Since conversion to digital was inevitable, setting a time table was a “no brainer.”

A bit of science here. All assigned radio frequencies (channels) within the radio spectrum(AM, FM, shortwave, emergency radio, cell phones, garage door openers, etc.) are not equal. Some frequencies are more valuable than others. It so happens that the frequencies that we use for analog TV are among the most desirable, since these signals can penetrate buildings, travel long distances, etc. So these TV channels could bring billions in revenue to federal coffers. In fact, the first two auctions took place in mid-January with bids totaling some $2.8 billion. The total revenue is pegged at between $10 and $12 billion.

I am sure you have read about the continuing problems that our police and fire departments often have establishing reliable communications in the event of a major disaster. This was brought home all too clearly in the aftermath of 911. The problem again was that available channels were just plain filled up. Part of the channels that will be made available in February 2009 when analog TV ceases to occupy the airwaves will be dedicated for use by homeland security and other first responders. This should greatly expand communications between and among these emergency workers.

The third reason for moving to digital is to take advantage of all the improvements digital affords. High Definition pictures and sound, multiple channels that occupy less space in the spectrum and easier recording and storage of programs are only a few of the benefits. None of these were practical within the old analog constraints.

For sure this conversion has and continues to be expensive. CET has spent millions to convert our studios and transmitter to digital as have all the other stations in Cincinnati and around the country. For the consumer, new TVs or set top converters will need to be purchased if you are not a cable or satellite subscriber. Is it all worth it? In my opinion, yes it is. Using wisely the radio spectrum is no less important than conserving any finite natural resource. For the consumer, the TV product, at least as it relates to the quality of the pictures and sound will be greatly enhanced. Time will tell if the stuff is worth watching …but that’s another column.